Is there anything wrong with liking urbanism AND auto-oriented places?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Many people.... will drink only the same brand of beer (scotch) every single day as it's what they think is the best.

Lagavulin 16: "If you think you've found a better bottle of single-malt, you're wrong"

[Innsertnamehere]

I like the mix. Lived in Toronto for years relatively car free (my wife / GF had a car, which I used increasingly as our relationship matured, but never for commuting, mostly just groceries and weekend trips), and loved the energy and the way you can just experience a city and your environment when you are walking or on a bike.

But damn is it inconvenient. I loved my cycling commute during the summers and shoulder seasons, but hated it in the winter. Any quick errand was simply not quick at all, and took an afternoon to complete almost anything it felt like.

Now I live in a more suburban environment, and while the convenience of driving to grab anything is super nice, I miss the access to trails and regular opportunities for physical activity mixed into daily life. Once WFH is over I'll return to a mix as I work in a more urban location, which will likely be a more happy medium to me.

I value the environment of an urban area, but value the pure unbridled efficiency of suburban areas, basically. Suburban areas are generally ugly as hell though.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't think that would have worked. It may have even worsened sprawl.

The issue is that the extreme sprawl characteristic of Metro Detroit is (or at least was) heavily white flight-based. If there were some scenario where it was difficult to move to sprawl within the tri-county area, I think it's most likely that the sprawl would have leapfrogged the counties. Basically Livingston County and the like would have developed earlier, while areas like Rochester and Novi would be even more affluent, due to growth restrictions.

Of course if you had European-style sprawl restrictions, and no freeway building, it would be impossible to live 50 miles out. But that's a pretty implausible scenario in the postwar U.S. context.

Preventing the townships from borrowing against future tax receipts to build infrastructure would've slowed it down a lot.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Lagavulin 16: "If you think you've found a better bottle of single-malt, you're wrong"

LOL

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't think that would have worked. It may have even worsened sprawl.

The issue is that the extreme sprawl characteristic of Metro Detroit is (or at least was) heavily white flight-based. If there were some scenario where it was difficult to move to sprawl within the tri-county area, I think it's most likely that the sprawl would have leapfrogged the counties. Basically Livingston County and the like would have developed earlier, while areas like Rochester and Novi would be even more affluent, due to growth restrictions.

Of course if you had European-style sprawl restrictions, and no freeway building, it would be impossible to live 50 miles out. But that's a pretty implausible scenario in the postwar U.S. context.

Or even worse, they would move South or West making Detroit metro area declining.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Or even worse, they would move South or West making Detroit metro area declining.

Moving south would've had the opposite effect, actually. If Metro Detroit ever started to sprawl into Ohio, Michigan would've been more proactive about managing the sprawl.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

I like the mix. Lived in Toronto for years relatively car free (my wife / GF had a car, which I used increasingly as our relationship matured, but never for commuting, mostly just groceries and weekend trips), and loved the energy and the way you can just experience a city and your environment when you are walking or on a bike.

But damn is it inconvenient. I loved my cycling commute during the summers and shoulder seasons, but hated it in the winter. Any quick errand was simply not quick at all, and took an afternoon to complete almost anything it felt like.

Now I live in a more suburban environment, and while the convenience of driving to grab anything is super nice, I miss the access to trails and regular opportunities for physical activity mixed into daily life. Once WFH is over I'll return to a mix as I work in a more urban location, which will likely be a more happy medium to me.

I value the environment of an urban area, but value the pure unbridled efficiency of suburban areas, basically. Suburban areas are generally ugly as hell though.

I think the highlighted really depends on the suburb though. Some suburbs are actually pretty amazing when it comes to access to bike trails and recreational areas and such. Often better than cities. (I'd argue they on average at least as good or better than cities - at least in North America.)

I am actually heading out on my bike in the next few minutes and will be stopping at my local grocery store for a few things. And I am in the burbs.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Moving south would've had the opposite effect, actually. If Metro Detroit ever started to sprawl into Ohio, Michigan would've been more proactive about managing the sprawl.

No, I meant South, with capital letter. Sun Belt...

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

No, I meant South, with capital letter. Sun Belt...

Ahh, sorry. Yeah, those people moved to the South and West anyway.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Ahh, sorry. Yeah, those people moved to the South and West anyway.

But even more people might have moved out.

Detroit, and the other Rust Belt metro areas, should have retained millions of more people, not growing -5% while some metro areas elsewhere were growing 50%. That's by far the biggest problem, urban sprawl pales in comparison.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

But even more people might have moved out.

Detroit, and the other Rust Belt metro areas, should have retained millions of more people, not growing -5% while some metro areas elsewhere were growing 50%. That's by far the biggest problem, urban sprawl pales in comparison.

I see no evidence that managing sprawl would've caused Metro Detroit to lose more population. All of the regions in the U.S. with strong anti-sprawl policies are growing. Some of those same places were growing much slower than Detroit less than 40 years ago.

[Crawford]

And the issue in the Rustbelt isn't outmigration, it's barely any immigration. It isn't that too many people are leaving, it's that almost no one is moving in from elsewhere.

Higher cost places, like the NE Corridor and Coastal CA, have extensive outmigration, but people aren't really fleeing OH. They're aging in place and newcomers aren't arriving.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I see no evidence that managing sprawl would've caused Metro Detroit to lose more population. All of the regions in the U.S. with strong anti-sprawl policies are growing. Some of those same places were growing much slower than Detroit less than 40 years ago.

Well, but they can afford to do it as there are many people wanting to move there, and are even to willing to pay more for a smaller plot/house. Unfortunately that's not Detroit's case.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Well, but they can afford to do it as there are many people wanting to move there, and are even to willing to pay more for a smaller plot/house. Unfortunately that's not Detroit's case.

Detroit was still growing faster than those places when they adopted those policies. That context is required to understand Detroit's situation. Detroit didn't alter policies to reflect a slower growing population, while those other regions did.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

Which cities in the US have managed sprawl?

The only city that I'm aware has an urban growth boundary is Portland, and I'm afraid to go to Portland.

The city you live in has done far more than Detroit ever even thought about doing.

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

The city you live in has done far more than Detroit ever even thought about doing.

You're right. We do have an urban growth boundary.

https://www.theurbanist.org/2019/10/...02.2%20million.

The more you know.

[muertecaza]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I think the highlighted really depends on the suburb though. Some suburbs are actually pretty amazing when it comes to access to bike trails and recreational areas and such. Often better than cities. (I'd argue they on average at least as good or better than cities - at least in North America.)

I am actually heading out on my bike in the next few minutes and will be stopping at my local grocery store for a few things. And I am in the burbs.

It's that way in Phoenix Metro. The city of Phoenix generally has the worst bike infrastructure in the metro. Both urban paths and bikelanes, as well as recreational trails are far superior in the East Valley suburbs like Mesa / Tempe / Scottsdale.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Detroit was still growing faster than those places when they adopted those policies. That context is required to understand Detroit's situation. Detroit didn't alter policies to reflect a slower growing population, while those other regions did.

I admit I'm ignorant on that matter. I thought comprehensive smart growth policies in the US was a Portland thing in the 2000's. I wasn't aware it was going on since the 1960's.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

I like the mix. Lived in Toronto for years relatively car free (my wife / GF had a car, which I used increasingly as our relationship matured, but never for commuting, mostly just groceries and weekend trips), and loved the energy and the way you can just experience a city and your environment when you are walking or on a bike.

But damn is it inconvenient. I loved my cycling commute during the summers and shoulder seasons, but hated it in the winter. Any quick errand was simply not quick at all, and took an afternoon to complete almost anything it felt like.

Now I live in a more suburban environment, and while the convenience of driving to grab anything is super nice, I miss the access to trails and regular opportunities for physical activity mixed into daily life. Once WFH is over I'll return to a mix as I work in a more urban location, which will likely be a more happy medium to me.

I value the environment of an urban area, but value the pure unbridled efficiency of suburban areas, basically. Suburban areas are generally ugly as hell though.

I don't buy the inconvenience angle that urbanites supposedly have to contend with. Like, I live a 2-block walk from work. On my daily 5-minute commute, I pass a small grocer, 3 corner stores, a bakery, a brewery, a weed shop, dry cleaners, laundromat, pharmacy, a couple coffee shops, and multiple restaurants, bars, and other services. Within a 10-minute walk in other directions I've got a full-service supermarket, liquor store, green grocer, butcher, and lots more. Literally everything I need for day-to-day life within 10 minutes, most of it on my way home from work - how does it get more convenient than that?

I recognize that my commuting situation may not be the norm, but the point remains that the density of an urban environment inherently leads to a density of services. Running errands on a traditional local retail strip should be less time consuming than having to hop in and out of the car, driving from strip mall to strip mall.

Having a car is absolutely still a major convenience for running longer trips or getting to destinations that aren't on direct transit corridors, for sure, but being in an urban location doesn't necessarily preclude one from the ownership or use of a car either - the only catch is that you might not be able to park it right at your front door.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

I don't buy the inconvenience angle that urbanites supposedly have to contend with. Like, I live a 2-block walk from work. On my daily 5-minute commute, I pass a small grocer, 3 corner stores, a bakery, a brewery, a weed shop, dry cleaners, laundromat, pharmacy, a couple coffee shops, and multiple restaurants, bars, and other services. Within a 10-minute walk in other directions I've got a full-service supermarket, liquor store, green grocer, butcher, and lots more. Literally everything I need for day-to-day life within 10 minutes, most of it on my way home from work - how does it get more convenient than that?

I recognize that my commuting situation may not be the norm, but the point remains that the density of an urban environment inherently leads to a density of services. Running errands on a traditional local retail strip should be less time consuming than having to hop in and out of the car, driving from strip mall to strip mall.

Having a car is absolutely still a major convenience for running longer trips or getting to destinations that aren't on direct transit corridors, for sure, but being in an urban location doesn't necessarily preclude one from the ownership or use of a car either - the only catch is that you might not be able to park it right at your front door.

I think both typologies have their inherent practical advantages that are very different.

I am the type of person who likes to have a drink when he goes out or has dinner, and so for me being in the city either walking or close to convenient transit is a big plus. When out with your car (almost always the case in the burbs if that's the destination or where you live) that's always in the back of your mind.

Also, some of the auto-dependent suburbs are also effectively choking on their alleged innate efficiency which is automobile mobility. Some of those wide suburban boulevards with hugely complex signalized intersections that the auto culture inevitably requires (if your city gets big enough) in addition to being ugly are a nightmare to drive along - I just hate them and avoid them like the plague. Nothing practical about that.

OTOH lugging a whole bunch of bags or stuff along the street and up several flights of stairs isn't always fun.

I guess you can go more often and not have so much stuff to carry each time, especially if the shops are just down the street. But there is something to be said about doing all your errands once a week (lugging them all in the car) and then being free of that stuff the rest of the week.